Template talk:Mattel

Note
@Fma12 When you are reverted, please discuss instead of reverting twice. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EDITWAR, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Don't know what other articles you refer to in your edit summary but what is done on other articles is not necessarily important for here. Just because you have not been reverted there, does not mean the edit is not controversial or potentially disputed. Moving the note to bottom of navbox increases the space it takes, and makes it harder to read the note as it's not next to the only content it relates to. Not like an article which is across much more space etc. Indagate (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course a consensus is needed but your reversions were based on what you think this template should look like rather than a fact. : this is your point of view; my opinion is that the navbox is quite large per se so a short note at bottom should not be a problem. In fact, notes help readers to focus on the related articles included on the template rather than distracting comments such as the one I moved.
 * You made 3 reversions to my edit so I'm not going to undo that to avoid 3RR. But I can't let this go so I have enough reasons to make a report at ANI but I prefer to invite you to be reasonable and find a way to reach a consensus.
 * BTW, other templates that have notes are: template:Hasbro, template:Non-Conmebol, template:Dodge, template:sports equipment brands. None other editor have complained or reverting an edit for any of them. ... according to your words, I guess the edits on those templates were not "controversial" at all. Fma12 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting case: in Template:Chevrolet vehicles notes (that I had added) were supressed after a consensus (see here - "rebadge notes" section) after an editor suggested it without reverting any previous change so he preferred to call to a debate first. That's the way I consider things should be done here to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Fma12 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * My reverts were based on my opinion as they are stylistic in the same way your edits were based on your opinion, unless you have anything else to support your edits? It's a fairly large navbox but having note at bottom still creates extra space for it. The comment is harder to read being so far away from the single entry it relates to.
 * Thanks for not reverting again, but you shouldn't revert again because of the reasons I gave in original post, i.e. keeping status quo until consensus developed. When you make an edit and are reverted, please do not make the exact same edit again without discussing and getting consensus, especially reverting twice. I am being reasonable and presenting reasons, your reverting against status quo and not assuming good faith (see my talk) is not helping.
 * Template:Hasbro and Template:Dodge have multiple notes and them cited in multiple places, so more useful, they were recently added by you. Template:Sports equipment brands does not include a similar note. Those examples do not make standard practice. How does that mean they were not controversial at all? There aren't time limits on a revert so they could be reverted at any time by anyone. Indagate (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all: don't be confused; I didn't assume bad faith on you, I said that "your edits were not constructive" which is not the same. And I keep my opinion so your edits were based on personal points of view/opinion (and so were mine of course). I undid your reversions because you had not given a clear explanation in the edit summary (putting "unncessary" is not clear enough to understand what you meant). That's the reason because I reverted again. And as the other user stated on the Chevrolet talk, you should have opened this post before reverting me 3 times. I'm a reasonable person, you can talk to me without needing to go to edit wars.


 * Regarding the note, it could be kept there but in a smaller size p.e. (Scrabble (except U.S. and Canada)). This is my point of view, you can have a different opinion of course, because we are talking about subjectives views instead of irrefutable facts.


 * if other user reverted one of those edits, I would expect he gave a reasonable explanation in the edit summary, at least. Fma12 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You as the person who made the original edit should have started discussion to get consensus for your edit where I would have elaborated on my objection, an edit summary is not the place for a lengthy reason. Wanting more detail is reason to start discussion, not revert twice against the status quo. My second revert had a longer reason.
 * Smaller font size cannot be used here because the font size is already smaller than normal, please see MOS:SMALLTEXT.
 * My edit summaries were reasonable. Indagate (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just made a "cosmetic" change that You reverted immediately without a valid explanation at first. It was me who preferred to use your talk page to make You understand ando avoid an edit war. You ave been refereing to the "status quo" as an excuse to revert any change You don't like, avoiding any objective view and that is not how things work here. You cannot force all users to ask You for permission to make changes to this template.
 * We are not discussing about facts or reliable sources so your position seems to be based on a whim instead an indisputsble argument. Moreover, we should not be involved in a so long discussion about a so simple change, But unfortunately your intransigence Made it harder than expected.
 * Last time, do You want to finish this unnecessary long debate and stop your disruptive reversions? Or do You prefer to discuss this at ANI? Because if You revert any change again, I'll make a report. Fma12 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are ridiculous accusations. Your edit is very different to WP:COSMETIC. I gave a valid explanation, if you wanted more detail the better approach would be opening a discussion instead of reverting. The status quo is what should remain while discussion in progress, not your disputed edit, per WP:STATUSQUO. I have not said anything about permission, I've not said you should've started discussion before first edit, just after you were reverted. You started a discussion on my talk page only after making your edit then reverting me twice, so making your edit three times. The correct place to discuss content disputes is here so other editors can get involved with their opinion. I explained through links in my original comment here about process, please read them. I have stated why I believe your edit is not constructive, your reasoning seems to be based on you making the same change elsewhere and not being reverted yet. This debate can be ended by looking for input from other editors using normal dispute resolution processes. My reversions are not disruptive, please assume good faith and be civil, they are based on what I believe looks best and works best for the reader. Indagate (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, your behaviour was far from civil. You reverted my edit 3 times, and you have not been collaborative at all. I came to your talk page after you reverted me twice, and I undone your reversions because I was (and I'm still am) convinced of my good faith. I was neither disruptive nor a vandal.
 * No, my reasons are based on making changes to several templates with no other user making things so hard as you do.
 * my reversions are based exactly on the same than you. That's the problem, you believe one thing and I believe another, but at least, I have tried to reach a reasonable consensus, but you rejected every proposal I gave. It's impossible to continue this way. Fma12 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tried to be civil. Yes I did revert you but that's not uncivil when I explained why. I agree that you made your original edit in good faith and not disruptive, but that is not reason to revert twice. I have tried to be collaborative but disagree that your edit is an improvement. "every proposal" is 2, your original edit which I've said makes it harder to read etc, and your suggestion here of making the note smaller size which I said goes directly against MOS:SMALLTEXT.
 * Let's please stop discussing user conduct which is pointless and leading nowhere, and focus on the content if needed, including potentially dispute resolution such as WP:3O. Indagate (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)